Method: Thirty human molars were prepared with Class II restorations standardized to the following dimensions: 4mm bucco-lingually, 5mm mesio-distally, 4mm depth, and the proximal box placed 0.5 mm below the CEJ. The teeth were then randomly divided into three groups:A: SonicFill + Optibond AIO (Kerr), B: SureFil SDR + Xeno IV + Ceram X (Dentsply) and C:Filtek Supreme Ultra + Adper Easy Bond (3M). The teeth were restored following manufacturers recommendations, (SonicFill and SureFil placed in bulk and Filtek Supreme placed incrementally). Teeth were polished and thermocycled for 1000 cycles at 5-55 0C. The teeth were sealed except 1mm around the restoration and immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye solution for 24h. Specimens were sectioned and dye penetration was observed under a stereomicroscope and scored as follows:
1=leakage no deeper than the ED junction
2=leakage deeper than the ED junction
3=leakage along the occlusal and/or axial walls
4=leakage into dentinal tubules
1=leakage not exceeding the middle of cervical wall
2=penetration past the middle of the cervical wall
3=penetration to the axial wall
4=penetration to and along the axial wall and tubules
Results: Microleakage scores were not found to be significantly different among the materials for the occlusal microleakage (p=0.919) or for the cervical microleakage (p=0.747). Overall microleakage, considering the maximum score from either cervical or occlusal for each sample, did not show significant differences either (P=0.541). None of the restorations had a score of 4.
Conclusions: SonicFill had similar microleakage to SureFil and Supreme and can be recommended to be used in bulk fill. This study was partially funded by Kerr Corporation.
Keywords: Adhesion, Composites, Dentin bonding agents, Microleakage and Technology
See more of: Dental Materials 2: Adhesion - Leakage/Margin Assessments